skip_apply_transaction

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses permanent discard of changes, the dry-run behavior, and the guard (allow_writes and env var). However, it omits changes in behavior on error (e.g., invalid LSN) or permission requirements, which are important for a destructive operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action, then explains the risk and the usage conditions. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavioral context (permanent discard, dry-run, dependency on diagnose_stuck_subscription). It lacks mention of required privileges or failure modes, but the presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need to describe return values. Overall, it's nearly complete for its complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains lsn as the exact LSN from diagnose_stuck_subscription, subscription_name by context, and allow_writes as the dry-run toggle. It adds practical meaning beyond the schema's bare types, though the LSN format could be more explicit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool 'skips the transaction wedging a subscription at an EXPLICIT LSN' and specifies the SQL command ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SKIP. It clearly identifies the action (skip), the resource (subscription at a specific LSN), and distinguishes from sibling tools like diagnose_stuck_subscription by referencing it as the source for the LSN.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides strong usage context: use only when the change is confirmed as redundant from the subscriber log, pass the exact LSN from diagnose_stuck_subscription, and no skip-to-head shortcut. It implies dry-run unless allow_writes is set, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use cases (e.g., if subscription is not stuck).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.